New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff landowner’s trespass claim against his neighbors because the disputed property was below the mean water line, plaintiff had not obtained a grant of riparian rights from the State, and plaintiff therefore did not have the authority to regulate the property. See Rapisardi v. Estate of Lange, 2018 WL 14739181 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). In the case, plaintiff and defendants were neighbors, and their properties bordered a creek.
The California Court of Appeals recently held that a deed of trust was a first-priority lien on a property even though the borrower who executed the deed of trust obtained title via a “sham transaction” because the lender was a bona fide encumbrancer for value. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Nazaryan, 2018 WL 1736622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). There, defendant and her husband purchased the subject property in 1998. In 2002, defendant transferred her interest in the property to her husband, and her husband executed a deed transferring the property to his sister that same day.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment and held that the defendant debt collection agency was meaningfully involved in the debt collection process and, as such, did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Echlin v. PeaceHealth, 887 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2018).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and held that the defendant debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by communicating plaintiffs’ debts to credit reporting agencies without stating that plaintiffs disputed the debts. See Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 889 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2018). In the case, defendant attempted to collect debts owed by plaintiffs, and plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to defendant in response.
The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a foreclosing plaintiff summary judgment and held that plaintiff did not need to send a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 because plaintiff was not a lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer. See NIC Holding Corp. v. Eisenegger, 59 Misc. 3d 1221(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018).
In a decision contrary to the holdings of two other circuit courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision and held that a plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) was time barred because he brought his action more than one year after the violation occurred, despite the fact that he brought it within one year of discovering it. See Rotkiske v. Klemm, 2018 WL 2209120 (3d Cir. May 15, 2018).
New York’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of an insured’s claim against a title agent because, among other things, the insured’s claim of a breach of an oral contract was barred by the title insurance policy’s merger clause. See Union St. Tower, LLC v. First Am. Title Co., 2018 WL 2123717 (2d Dept. May 9, 2018).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision granting a loan servicer summary judgment dismissing a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) because the plaintiff borrower did not suffer any actual damages. See Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 887 F.3d 319 (7th Cir. 2018).
Riker Danzig Partner Michael O’Donnell and associates Michael Crowley and Clarissa Gomez co-authored an article in the Spring 2018 issue of New Jersey Banker Magazine entitled “New Jersey’s Department of Banking and Insurance Adopts New Mortgage Processing Requirements.” The article discusses two changes regarding residential mortgages and how these changes will affect residential lenders.
Please note that the disclosure of mortgage loan application fees issue is still evolving. After publication of this article, the Department of Banking and Insurance determined that the disclosures will not currently be mandatory and financial institutions are currently free to decide on their own whether to incorporate such disclosures in their forms.
Click here to read the entire article.
A Utah appellate court recently held that use restrictions on an insured property did not render it unmarketable under the title insurance policy, but that damages caused because one of the insured lots overlapped with a neighboring parcel would be covered. See Lauritzen v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1663285 (Utah Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2018).